Originally posted by CIAGypsy
It has been pointed out by several posters that the OP *is* just regurgitating information she has read elsewhere and which has been provided in many
other places on ATS without adding any additional information or new insight of her own. Just because she has quoted something she read elsewhere
does NOT mean she (or the person she quoted) isn't "making some reaching speculation." Quoting someone else doesn't mean the original quote is golden
and without contestation....

First of all, who ever argued that the "occult" doesn't use symbolism? Our entire language and communication structure is based upon symbolism. But
that doesn't make any particular symbol something evil or intended to enslave the masses. There are many symbols in existence which can represent
many different things to different cultures based upon where and how they are displayed.

Secondly, AO Spare is far from an authority on sigils or the occult. He was an artist who dabbled in chaos magick. You'd have been better to quote
someone like Peter Carroll or Kenneth Grant whom was a primary influence for Spare. And unless you are making the claim that the alleged "illuminati"
is operating strictly based upon chaos magick, then the previous posters argument still holds that the claim doesn't follow your suggested pattern.
Chaos magick is only one stream of "occult" philosophy and not even what I would consider a mainstream one at that....

First of all, I was saying nothing of the OP's claims, but rather addressing someone who I felt was attempting to "debunk" every little thing, in this
case using rather poor logic, and pointing out why I felt that was poor logic and based in ignorance of the occult. If I had been commenting on some
of the other stuff, I might have mentioned that I have read a lot of speculation and more than a few assertions that the $ symbol is
based on The Caduceus.

Second, you are correct, of course, that quoting someone does not mean the original quote is without error. However, quoting the assertion of
someone else, which you take on good faith or authority to be true, is certainly not the same thing as speculating.

Third, I'm not even sure what you're attempting to address with "...who ever argued that the "occult" doesn't use symbolism?." I never said anything
like that at all.

Fourth-- you are correct that Spare was associated with "Chaos Magick" and that chaos magick is not representative of the mainstream. You are
incorrect on quite a number of other points though. Spare did not "dabble" in chaos magick-- he was one of the most influential members. I'm sure
you'll complain about referencing wikipedia, but just so you don't think this is my personal opinion, and for lack of a better source, I'll give you
this:

Visionary artist and mystic Austin Osman Spare, who was briefly a member of Aleister Crowley's A∴A∴ but later broke with them
to work independently, is largely the source of chaos magical theory and practice. Specifically, Spare developed the use of sigils and
the use of gnosis to empower these. Most basic sigil work recapitulates Spare's technique, including the construction of a phrase detailing the
magical intent, the elimination of duplicate letters, and the artistic recombination of the remaining letters to form the sigil. Although Spare died
before chaos magic emerged, many consider him to be the father of chaos magic because of his repudiation of traditional magical systems in favor of a
technique based on gnosis.

As such, to say that Spare did not have a major influence on modern occultism is completely fallacious. And while chaos magick itself, as a "system"
(if it can be called that) lies outside the realm of the "mainstream occult" (if there is such a thing) some of the techniques of chaos magick, and
particularly the techniques of Spare absolutely have become widespread in modern western occultism.

I can direct you toward quite a number of books (print) and websites which have nothing to do with, or to say about "chaos magick" specifically, and
yet detail some of Spare's techniques, such as his sigil technique (arguably the most popular and widespread) and the "Earthenware Virgin," to name
another of the most popular ones.

Further, "Chaos Magick," while not itself mainstream, is not an organized system of magic, but rather a collection of techniques and concepts which
can be applied to other "schools" of occult theory or practice, and in my nearly 20 years of serious study I have seen its influence quite
extensively-- especially in sigil magick.

Last, I will point out that I think you're nit-picking at a false point just like the member I was addressing with my last post. My pointing out that
the aforementioned member was using poor logic for a pointless argument does not hinge on this sigil (which I've made no claims about, myself) being
related to chaos magick in any way. I was merely pointing out that similar techniques are known to be used in occult symbolism-- a fact which in and
of itself makes the aforementioned poster's argument about "only one s" completely invalid.

Likewise, his argument was also dashed by the fact that it was not her personal speculation. If I remember correctly, the aforementioned book
purports the information regarding the meaning / origin of this sigil was from The Smithsonian-- so I guess take it up with the author of that book,
or assuming he was truthful, with The Smithsonian.

Founded by Frank S. Land, a Freemason, DeMolay is modeled after Freemasonry. With the sponsorship of a Masonic body, a DeMolay chapter often meets in
a lodge room or, if not in a lodge room, then some other appropriate room in the same building. Although none of the youth groups are "masonic
organizations" as such, DeMolay is considered to be part of the general "family" of Masonic and associated organizations, along with other youth
groups such as Job's Daughters and Rainbow. As with Rainbow, a young man does not need to have family connection to Masonry in order to join
DeMolay.

Also of note is the double cross used in its coat of arms which I outlined earlier as the cross of Malta and the Swastika/Bhavacakra. It is the four
corners of the Earth (N/S/E/W) and cross drawn across the celestial zodiac and represents union of the two (illumination/enlightenment).

This is symbolic of experience of spiritual realm. Those who have experienced it are often called enlightened/illuminated which is where the term
comes from.

Those individuals are often represented as Solar men or placed at the center of a Zodiac which can easily be found of Disney. Lets not forget that
when one adds up all the squares on a magic square they add up to 666 which is a solar/enlightened number.

Now the process of illumination involves the release of '___' from the pineal gland which is one of the areas where the hexagram and pentagram come
into play in the process.

Note the physical shape of '___' is a carbon chain of a hexagon attached to a pentagon with an amine tail attached: en.wikipedia.org...

This is were the 33 comes into play. It represents illumination as there are 33 vertebrae in the spine before the skull which holds the pineal gland.
This is also what is represented by kundalini serpent energy and activation of the chakras.

Edit:
The disney 666 has not only one but two sets of 666 in its castle logo.

edit on 2-1-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

One more point to make is that the all seeing eye is a being with an active pineal gland aka aware of the spiritual influences around them. It is the
crown chakra (corona aka solar).

This why enlightenment art often represents people as plants as it represents them as solar powered or living off the light which is illumination.
(see Secret History of the Word for many representations of this theme in art of those involved in the activity).

Hello OP. Thank you for putting this thread together. Looks like you put a lot of thought and work into it. Very interesting stuff indeed.

Just a couple of things I would like to express however. For your post about Jessica Rabbit, I never really cared for that character (always made me
feel uncomfortable to be honest), but I was always under the impression that that movie was for adults and not children anyway. I admit my dad would
let my brother and I watch all sorts of stuff when we were really young, much to the chagrin of my mum of course. So my point there is that, in this
instance, it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their children can or can not watch.

Also, as to your post about the show Flapjack, I love that show, lol. I always thought it was hilarious. Same for other shows like Chowder, Invader
Zim, Adventure Time, etc. Even the originals like Ren & Stimpy, Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, etc.
So even at my age, I still like some cartoons. I love the creativity and humour in it. Sure there are some stupid ones out there, but I still enjoy
them nonetheless.

I turned out fine. My kids are fine. I am more strict with my kids though with what they watch than how my dad was with my brother and I. No Aliens or
Chuckie movies for them, not even Disney movies. Too late for my first though. I had no idea at the time. I had all the old classic Disney movies from
when I was a kid myself, so I let her watch. I still have the original VHS video and case of The Little Mermaid with the phallic object. I also have
the original VHS of the Rescuer's Down Under with the small image of a woman's breasts in a background poster in
one of the scenes.

All in all, thanks for the info and your own perspectice on this subject.

Hello OP. Thank you for putting this thread together. Looks like you put a lot of thought and work into it. Very interesting stuff indeed.

Just a couple of things I would like to express however. For your post about Jessica Rabbit, I never really cared for that character (always made me
feel uncomfortable to be honest), but I was always under the impression that that movie was for adults and not children anyway. I admit my dad would
let my brother and I watch all sorts of stuff when we were really young, much to the chagrin of my mum of course. So my point there is that, in this
instance, it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their children can or can not watch.

Hi, thanks for your reply. "Who framed Roger Rabbit" is rated PG. Of course parents need to supervise their children. It is the subliminal part I
worry about.

Also, as to your post about the show Flapjack, I love that show, lol. I always thought it was hilarious. Same for other shows like Chowder, Invader
Zim, Adventure Time, etc. Even the originals like Ren & Stimpy, Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, etc.
So even at my age, I still like some cartoons. I love the creativity and humour in it. Sure there are some stupid ones out there, but I still enjoy
them nonetheless.

I blocked Flap Jack from my 4 year old who was pretty confused and scared after watching this. Of course it is not disturbing to adults, but for a
child I believe it is. I grew up on Disney and my children watched them as well. Back then I had no idea about the subliminal part or the history of
Walt Disney and what family values it actually teaches young girls.

I turned out fine. My kids are fine. I am more strict with my kids though with what they watch than how my dad was with my brother and I. No Aliens or
Chuckie movies for them, not even Disney movies. Too late for my first though. I had no idea at the time. I had all the old classic Disney movies from
when I was a kid myself, so I let her watch. I still have the original VHS video and case of The Little Mermaid with the phallic object. I also have
the original VHS of the Rescuer's Down Under with the small image of a woman's breasts in a background poster in
one of the scenes.

I believe I turned out well too, though a couple members in this thread would argue this statement..lol. If you teach your children good values and
don't subject them to this constantly, I believe they will be fine. However I'm actually pretty upset about the subliminal part and I'm very
cautious on what my kids see on tv. I think it's about awareness,this was why I started this thread.

All in all, thanks for the info and your own perspectice on this subject.

I completely agree with you. Thanks for the reply. I'm also wary of what my children are exposed to now. I can see how your four year old would be
freightened of that show and why you'd block it. It can be weird, but I guess that's why I like it.

I also see these symbols here and there but I tend to see them mostly with Disney, music stations, and a few other pop culture type stations. I try to
steer clear of that stuff concerning my kids. But I'm sure it's in more places than I have noticed. After all, it is supposed to be hidden.

I completely respect your decision to monitor what your children watch, I mean, that's part of taking responsibility as a parent afterall. There are
those who want to blame t.v and the makers of the shows on how kids behave or talk. I think that's just trying to point the blame away from
themselves. All they got to do is turn it off.

The only thing we can do is get the info out there, just as you did, in order for people to make informed decisions.

"In 1934 Mr. Hall founded the Philosophical Research Society, dedicating it to the ensoulment of all arts, sciences, and crafts, and devoted to the
one basic purpose of advancing the brotherhood of all that lives, to meet all lovers of wisdom on a common ground."

The Philosophical Research Society has nothing to do with Freemasonry...But by all means keep trying to connect invisible dots >.>

You guys can pat yourselves on the back on you want. It doesnt take away from the fact that the OP lied about a source and its meaning. And you cant
even call me a troll or a shill. I HELPED in her sandy hook thread. I took the time to call SAG for her, following a lead. She and I messaged each
other multiple times getting to know each other.

Also by this logic, since I would guesstimate that at least 30-40% of the world, if not more follow Christianity. With about 7 billion people, that
would average to around 2 billion+ or so.

"Although Christianity began as a cult, Christianity's 2 billion+ followers make it now the most widespread of the worlds religions." Reference:
Society the Basics 11th edition 2011, John J. Macionis, Chp 13 pg 386

So, again, following this logic, just about every crime imaginable has at least been committed by someone professing to be a Christian. So tell me why
we aren't treating them the same way you treat Masons?

Not sure were you have the impression from that I stated sex is evil? However, how do you justify placing sexual content hidden and in plain sight in
Disney movies such as an erect Penis, or the obvious erection in the mermaid movie (which was later removed)?

It has no place of being in there and has nothing to do with sex being evil. Sex is for adults, not children. It goes back to going over the family
values Disney teaches our children, especially girls.

A little research goes a long way. I admire you for all the work youve done. But the number one rule in researching is to first try and discredit
yourself. Try and find out the counter arguments and see if you are just purporting myth.

I proved you were doing just that, purporting myth when it came to the $ symbol. And now I do the same with The Little Mermaid phallic symbol.

The Palace with the Phallus Claim: One of the castle spires on the cover of Disney's The Little Mermaid home video was deliberately drawn as a
phallus by a disgruntled artist. Status: False. Origins: One of the castle spires in the Artwork in question background of The Little Mermaid
promotional artwork bears an unmistakable resemblance to a penis, so much so that many people are unwilling to dismiss the drawing as mere accident or
coincidence. Rumors started circulating shortly after the release of the videocassette edition of The Little Mermaid that the phallic object had been
deliberately drawn as a last act of defiance by a disgruntled Disney artist who was miffed at being notified that he would be laid off at the
conclusion of the project. The plain truth is that the resemblance between the castle spire and a penis was purely accidental, and it was drawn by an
artist who was neither disgruntled nor about to be dismissed.

First of all, the artist who created the video cover art did not work for Disney itself, thus he was neither "disgruntled with Disney" nor
"about to be fired." We questioned the artist, who also drew artwork for Little Mermaid theatrical advertising, pop-ups, greeting cards, Happy Meal
boxes, and CDs. The theatrical posters were done before the original release of the film, but the video cover art was not created until a few months
before the home video version hit the market. Rushed to complete the video artwork (featuring towers that were rather phallic to begin with), the
artist hurried through the background detail (at "about four in the morning") and inadvertently drew one spire that bore a rather close resemblance to
a penis. The artist himself didn't notice the resemblance until a member of his youth church group heard about the controversy on talk radio and
called him at his studio with the news. The later laserdisc release of the film was issued with a cover containing an altered version of the infamous
spire. Contrary to common belief, the phallic-like spire did not make its first appearance with the cover to the home video version. The same
background drawing of the castle, with the same spires, appeared in promotional material and posters that accompanied the film's original theatrical
release. The video cover does differ slightly from the original version, but the castle shown in the background is the same in both versions. (Later
versions of the laserdisc cover were altered to remove the offending spire.)

You say the op lied about a source, you claimed this source of yours debunks the little mermaid issue when clearly it does not, it contradicts
itself..... Did you even read it before posting? Were you honestly mistaken, or could it be called a lie?

Again this seems to be trivial but I'm using the same concept you used to call out the op, except I'm not accusing you of being a liar, Im asking for
your opinion as it would be jumping the gun to say you outright lied about your source.

Maybe instead of us all trying to discredit each other we should move on with the topic, what you say?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.